What the Popes Have to Say About Socialism (Ecumenical)

American TFP ^ | 02/24/2010 | Gustavo Solimeo

[Pyro7480]

After examining the ideology of socialism, the contrast between the socialist doctrine and the doctrine of the Church becomes clear and consistent.

All the same, it is not out of place to review the condemnation of the popes starting with Pius IX and ending with Benedict XVI. Thus, we present what the popes have to say about socialism as they condemn the socialist doctrine thoroughly and entirely. This is not a comprehensive compilation, but just some samples.

PIUS IX (1846-1878):

“Overthrow [of] the entire order of human affairs”
“You are aware indeed, that the goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism, by confusing them with perverted teachings.” (Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, December 8, 1849)
 

LEO XIII (1878-1903):

Hideous monster
“...communism, socialism, nihilism, hideous deformities of the civil society of men and almost its ruin.” (Encyclical Diuturnum, June 29, 1881)

Ruin of all institutions
“... For, the fear of God and reverence for divine laws being taken away, the authority of rulers despised, sedition permitted and approved, and the popular passions urged on to lawlessness, with no restraint save that of punishment, a change and overthrow of all things will necessarily follow. Yea, this change and overthrow is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of communists and socialists” (Encyclical Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, n. 27).

A sect “that threatens civil society with destruction”

“…We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning - the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever. Surely, these are they who, as the sacred Scriptures testify, ‘Defile the flesh, despise dominion and blaspheme majesty.’ (Jud. 8).” (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)

Socialists debase the natural union of man and woman and assail the right of property
“They [socialists, communists, or nihilists] debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust. Lured, in fine, by the greed of present goods, which is ‘the root of all evils, which some coveting have erred from the faith’ (1 Tim. 6:10.3), they assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one's mode of life.” (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)

Destructive sect
“...socialists and members of other seditious societies, who labor unceasingly to destroy the State even to its foundations.” (Encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888)

Enemy of society and of Religion
“...there is need for a union of brave minds with all the resources they can command. The harvest of misery is before our eyes, and the dreadful projects of the most disastrous national upheavals are threatening us from the growing power of the socialistic movement. They have insidiously worked their way into the very heart of the community, and in the darkness of their secret gatherings, and in the open light of day, in their writings and their harangues, they are urging the masses onward to sedition; they fling aside religious discipline; they scorn duties; they clamor only for rights; they are working incessantly on the multitudes of the needy which daily grow greater, and which, because of their poverty are easily deluded and led into error. It is equally the concern of the State and of religion, and all good men should deem it a sacred duty to preserve and guard both in the honor which is their due.” (Encyclical Graves de Communi Re, January 18, 1901, n. 21)

SAINT PIUS X (1903-1914):

The dream of re-shaping society will bring socialism
“But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, ‘the reign of love and justice’ ... What are they going to produce? ... A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.” (Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique ["Our Apostolic Mandate"] to the French Bishops, August 15, 1910, condemning the movement Le Sillon)

BENEDICT XV (1914-1922):

The condemnation of socialism should never be forgotten
“It is not our intention here to repeat the arguments which clearly expose the errors of Socialism and of similar doctrines. Our predecessor, Leo XIII, most wisely did so in truly memorable Encyclicals; and you, Venerable Brethren, will take the greatest care that those grave precepts are never forgotten, but that whenever circumstances call for it, they should be clearly expounded and inculcated in Catholic associations and congresses, in sermons and in the Catholic press.” (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914, n. 13)

 

PIUS XI (1922-1939):

Socialism, fundamentally contrary to Christian truth
“... For Socialism, which could then be termed almost a single system and which maintained definite teachings reduced into one body of doctrine, has since then split chiefly into two sections, often opposing each other and even bitterly hostile, without either one however abandoning a position fundamentally contrary to Christian truth that was characteristic of Socialism.” (Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n. 111)
 

Socialism cannot be reconciled with Catholic Doctrine

“But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized. That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.” (Ibid. n. 117)

Catholic Socialism, a contradiction
“[Socialism] is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.” (Ibid. n. 120)

PIUS XII (1939-1958):

The state can not be regarded as being above all
"To consider the State as something ultimate to which everything else should be subordinated and directed, cannot fail to harm the true and lasting prosperity of nations." (Encyclical Summi Pontificatus, October 20, 1939, n. 60)
 

JOHN XXIII (1958-1963):

“No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism”
“Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.” (Encyclical Mater et Magistra, May 15, 1961, n. 34) 

PAUL VI (1963-1978):

Too often Christians tend to idealize socialism
“Too often Christians attracted by socialism tend to idealize it in terms which, apart from anything else, are very general: a will for justice, solidarity and equality. They refuse to recognize the limitations of the historical socialist movements, which remain conditioned by the ideologies from which they originated.” (Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens, May 14, 1971, n. 31)

JOHN PAUL II (1978-2005):

Socialism: Danger of a “simple and radical solution”

“It may seem surprising that ‘socialism’ appeared at the beginning of the Pope's critique of solutions to the ‘question of the working class’ at a time when ‘socialism’ was not yet in the form of a strong and powerful State, with all the resources which that implies, as was later to happen. However, he correctly judged the danger posed to the masses by the attractive presentation of this simple and radical solution to the ‘question of the working class.’" (Encyclical Centesimus Annus − On the 100^th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, May 1, 1991, n. 12)

Fundamental error of socialism: A mistaken conception of the person
“Continuing our reflections, ... we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property.” (Ibid, n. 13)

BENEDICT XVI (2005 - present):

“We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything”
“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person − every person − needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) − a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, December 25, 2005, n. 28)

[the_conscience]

Thanks Campion.

[Ransomed]

Things are actually better than they have been for decades(not that it doesn’t have a LONG way to go), and you would have never seen some of the discipline type stuff going on you see now. For example, so many bishops speaking out against Obama speecherfying at ND. Yes it was terrible that it couldn’t have been stopped, but if it had happened in the 70s-80s you probably wouldn’t have heard any bishop speaking out against it, and probably would have heard of some who strongly supported it.

As far as bishops not treating abortion like what they say it is, it’s going to be looked back at as a scandal that dwarfs the homosexualist priest scandal.

Freegards

[editor-surveyor]

"The relationship between the Church and Chavez isn't exactly what I'd call a happy one."

But don't you wonder why it isn't much more clear-cut and defined?

Is the RCC simply too big to deal with Chavez because he isn't the only one in need of rebuke?

[chuckles]

In Romans I, from about the middle, say verse 19 to the end of Romans I, a list of sins is enumerated, and then in the last couple of verses says that if you agree with these sins, but don't do them yourself, you are as guilty as the person that commits the sin.

So the person that says that he/she personally doesn't approve of abortion but says he wouldn't vote to stop it, has the innocent blood of that child on his/her hands. The Catholics that stay in the Democrat party that has in its planks, the women's "right to choose" is committing murder by prolonging this abomination.

Now that's my personal reading of the Scripture and I feel the Church agrees with that interpretation. Having established that, why are these high profile Dems allowed to remain in the Church? I have been scolded that it is difficult to be excommunicated, and I can appreciate that, but at some point, shouldn't the Church make a decision over the parishioners that are publicly thumbing their noses at the Church? Why was Teddy Kennedy allowed to be supported by the Church in Mass. year after year, when his life was fraught with open defiance of the Church?

I know there are many that say that it isn't up to me to decide who is worthy to be called Catholic, but at what point is the Church responsible to decide the parishioner isn't serious about their faith? IMHO, a few "trials" of high profile perps would prove the Church will not bend to Satan and means what it is saying. If there were consequences for a few of these, the low profile Catholics would have to decide it's either being Catholic, or being a Democrat, you can't be both.

Recently, we all were reminded that the charade is ongoing when Biden and others proudly wore their ashes on their foreheads on TV to show they are still "good Catholics". Maybe Biden just fell into a door and it was a bruise, That's what the "Catholic" news caster thought anyway. She didn't even know it was ash Wed. That's where we are today.

[chuckles]

I pray you are right. I'm pretty sensitive on the subject and probably overlook any progress because it seems to be slow and erratic.

Abortion and the Church has been going on for 40 years. I've had to mute the TV or cover my ears to listen to Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Kennedy, and others over decades. I get angry and ashamed to know that they are welcomed into the Church and even recognized for their "acts". I often think of what it would be like for NAZI's to be honored by Jewish Synagogue's. I'm told I should pray for my "brothers" and seek to bridge the gaps of understanding, but for how long? I don't think Pelosi will have an epiphany and fall in love with the Catholic Church's teaching. It isn't like she doesn't know what the Church teaches and she has decided she knows better. I'm sure the Unitarians would love to have her.

Abortion is just the most visible sin in public view, but there are many other splits that go almost in silence. I even hate to bring up women priests or condoms or divorce, when abortion is out there in front of everyone. I wish condom use was all Catholics had to argue about, but abortion and euthanasia are front and center most of the time and Dem Catholics are right there in defiance of the Church.

A line in the sand should be drawn on abortion and the ones that can't accept this should be asked to leave. Otherwise Catholics are no different than the other denominations that are crumbling under the weight of liberalism.

[Campion]

But don't you wonder why it isn't much more clear-cut and defined?

Not sure what you mean by that. The hierarchy doesn't like him. I see no evidence that he practices his [supposed] faith, in fact, it's not entirely clear to me that he even still self-identifies as a "Catholic".

So what you have in Chavez -- as far as I've been able to determine -- is a non-practicing "Catholic" at odds with his bishop.

No point in excommunicating him (assuming he's not already done so himself latae sententiae): he doesn't "communicate" in the first place, and would just try to make himself a martyr.

[Campion]

Having established that, why are these high profile Dems allowed to remain in the Church?

I think you, and editor-surveyor (above), may have a bit of a misunderstanding about what "excommunication" does. It doesn't remove the excommunicate from the church -- even a bishop doesn't have that power.

If you want to talk definitive removal from the Catholic Church, that has to come either from the sinner himself (by formally declaring that he is not a Catholic, or joining some other religion, etc.), or from God -- by having the sinner die and go to the bad place.

Excommunication simply says to a Catholic: "You are prohibited, formally and publicly, from receiving any of the sacraments of the church, until such time as you repent of sin X before a minister Y authorized to accept your repentance." (Exactly who Y is, depends on the situation of the case; either a priest, a bishop, or the Pope.)

Canon 915 is not excommunication. It's an instruction to the minister of communion to refuse communion to "manifest public sinners". I, like a lot of other Catholics (e.g., Abp. Raymond Burke of the Holy See), think it ought to be used a lot more often than it is.

As to why it isn't, ask the bishop of the person in question.

[chuckles]

I agree and understand with the “official” stance of the Church. What I have trouble with is the actual stance of the Church. When I complain about what is going on, I either get “Catholic Basher” or the “official” stance of the Church you just recited. I still have trouble squaring the “Official” stance with Ted Kennedy and others.

Obviously I can't "vote" Mr. Kennedy out of the Church and the priests and Bishops don't seem to care what I think, so I'm left disillusioned and angry why I am taught one thing, but others are judged by a different standard. I am lectured all the time about how The Church is stable and consistent and then have to watch the Church hold Teddy up as a pillar in the Church. I don't doubt at some point he will be nominated for "sainthood" if they could just get past all that Kopeckney and divorce stuff. ( and others stuff we can't know that the Church knows about but is hiding.)

I know I'm being a little persnickety, but it is weighing on me that the Church would participate in this folly. As far as I'm concerned, allowing Pelosi, Kerry and Biden to take the Sacraments, makes the Church a participant in their sin. The Church cannot possibly say they don't know what these people are doing. I am more of an activist type and it's hard to defend the Church when these people are raised in conversation. If the Church chooses to ignore their sin, I have to ask what the motivations are from the Church. Money, access, position, ...?

When I bring up excommunication, I'm told it's none of my business and the Church will handle Church business. Well, I've been waiting a few DECADES now.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, all the marching and sign waving from anti abortion Catholics would pale in comparison if the Church just held one highly visible Dem to public humiliation. Try to imagine Pelosi being called out to defend herself against Church discipline. She would eventually be forced, in public, to chose abortion, or Catholicism. I know it would force many to re evaluate their positions if she were disciplined. And it may have stopped the abomination that was Teddy's funeral.

I'm not saying the church needs to wiretap and hire detectives to follow parishioners around, but these people rub our noses in their defiance and then enjoy the backing of the Church. If the Church didn't back Kennedy for 50 years, could he have been repeatedly elected in Massachusetts? Couldn't the Church find and support a pro life Catholic instead of him? Kerry is the same thing. I have mentioned several times that Obama won with a majority of the Catholic vote and all I get is "They aren't real Catholics". All that means is it means nothing to call yourself Catholic. It has been taken over with non Catholics if that is the case. Most of my life I've been taught that you don't really have the option to disagree with Catholic doctrine if you want to be a Catholic. It isn't a democracy. IMHO, this is why we have the women priests, birth control, married priests, ect, controversies. If we can debate these issues, then why not be pro abortion, and homosexual marriage? I'm told over and over the position of the Church is clear, but I guess some haven't gotten the memo. As far as I can tell it depends on who you are and what Bishop you have as to whether or not abortion is murder. It's starting to make sense why a Mafia Don gets all the bells and whistles funeral when they get whacked in New Jersey. If the Church gets the check, the guy gets the "works". Pretty cynical, huh?

This kind of talk angers many Catholics, but I'm sick of fighting for babies lives and have the Church back the baby killers. We could argue many issues , but abortion has to be the slam dunk issue to unite Catholics. I just can't bend or water it down, and frankly, the Church is trying to have it both ways. .........I'm done, /rant off

[Wuli]

I know I will offend many, but, actions speak much louder than words, and my own belief on this is that Ratzinger, many RC Cardinals and the majority of American Roman Catholic Bishops “speak with forked tongue” ON THIS ISSUE (socialism), as Native American’s used to say, when the Europeans said one thing and then supported something else.

I haven’t found one set of statements by American RC officials where they find anything offensive about Obamacare other than “right to life” issues and mandates that could make RC institutions become legally obligated to take actions against their moral principles. But, there is a ton of massive socialist encroachment into the fabric of our lives in Obamacare, accompanied by, and to be enforced by massive expansion of federal authorities, and on THOSE things the RC is silent. And that is the same RC that invited BHO to Notre Dame. The shoe fits.

[Salvation]

Excellent thread! Thank you so much for posting it.

[delacoert]

Thank God for Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) for the issuance of:

1. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Instruction on certain aspects of the 'Theology of Liberation'", Origins 14/13 (September 13, 1984).
2. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation", Origins 15/44 (April 17, 1986).

for halting the drift toward socialism rooted in Liberation Theology and pope Paul VI's inexplicable support thereof. 

Don't forget that Pope Paul VI in "Populorum Progressio" (1967) critiqued the international economic order, explicitly condemned the capitalistic system as presently known for the social evils and called for development through consensus rather than struggle.  Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) was prefect of the CDF at the time when the instructions were issued, and published his own personal criticism of the movement in 1985.  The workings of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are totally beyond me, but seem to have played a God ordained role on par with the pope.

[Pyro7480]

You’re right that too many bishops don’t brush up on and/or don’t care what their own Church teaches, but it isn’t just on the issue of socialism.

[Crolis]

Bookmarking for future reference.